1Assistant Professor, GMC SSH Jammu
2Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, ASCOMS Jammu
Corresponding Author: Dr Rasmeet Kour, Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, ASCOMS Jammu. Email: dr.rasmeet@gmail.com
Introduction- Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication of spinal anesthesia in cesarean section, influenced by needle design and gauge. Smaller Quincke needles may reduce PDPH but could increase technical difficulty. This study compares the incidence and characteristics of PDPH using 25G and 27G Quincke needles in obstetric patients.
Materials and Methods- This prospective randomized study at Government Medical College, Jammu (April 2024–May 2025) included 200 ASA I–II parturients undergoing elective cesarean section. Patients were allocated to 25G or 27G Quincke needles (n=100 each). Spinal anesthesia was standardized. PDPH was assessed for five days using International Headache Society criteria. Data were statistically analyzed (p<0.05 was considered significant).
Result- Two hundred parturients were randomized and equally allocated into Group A (25G Quincke needle) and Group B (27G Quincke needle). Baseline and procedural variables were comparable. PDPH incidence was significantly lower with 27G (6%) than 25G (14%) (p=0.048). Multiple attempts increased PDPH risk (p=0.003). Mean VAS score and duration were significantly higher in the 25G group (p<0.05). Most headaches occurred within 24–48 hours and were managed conservatively.
Conclusion- Use of a 27G Quincke needle significantly reduced the incidence, severity, and duration of post-dural puncture headache compared to 25G in cesarean section patients. Multiple attempts increased PDPH risk. The 27G needle offers a safer, effective option for obstetric spinal anesthesia.
Keywords- Cesarean section, Anesthesia, PDPH, 25G, 27G, Quincke needle etc.
How to cite this article: Gupta V, Kour R. Post Dural Puncture Headache after Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparison of 25G and 27G Quincke Needles in Cesarean Section. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(10s): 946-952. DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.10s.110
Source of support: Nil.
Conflict of interest: None